Comments on: Could this be the end of Wikipedia

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:57:30 +0000

I gave up (and I was an administrator, probably still am) not because of the need to revert vandalism (one click in most cases), but because the whole thing had come to be dominated by sociopaths, and the byzantine rules made it nearly impossible to deal with them. (Yes, rules – for an organisation set up by a Libertarian and with a philosophy that the truth will emerge from freewheeling anarchy, it has a remarkably complex and badly-documented “legal” system). Articles on pseudoscience came to be dominated by true believers, and articles tended to reflect the persistence of nutters rather than established facts (not just pseudoscience – religion, politics, philosophy, the traditional counties of England, you name it). These days I’d only ever believe Wikipedia, as Matty says, as a first reference on uncontroversial subjects.

By: mordicai

mordicai — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:37:38 +0000

Or could you take it as a call to action & start volunteering more frequently?

By: Siobhan M

Siobhan M — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:01:26 +0000

“The English language version of the site has suffered a huge lose of volunteer editors(…)The reason behind this is apparently based on the fact that there is an increased level of bureaucracy to help stop errors and misinformation.”

Why? Surely it’s a good thing that they want to stop people adding rubbish or full-on lies to a site used for research by millions of people?

I’m not saying I agree with blanket censorship, but this is different. I’ve never fully trusted anything on Wikipedia, because it’s always been victim to pranksters making joke entries or even claiming people have died when they were in fact still alive.

I’d be suspicious of anyone who says they’d stop helping out on the site because of the need to “stop errors and misinformation”. It would make me wonder just what they intended to get up to on there.

By: Marty

Marty — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:21:50 +0000

Maybe their one-sided bias and blatant censorship on controversial issues has something to do with this. But then … maybe not. Maybe people have written what they wanted and walked out Or are more concerned about their survival and don’t have so much free time now that we have this “economic crisis” …

By: Lady Claire

Lady Claire — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:39:29 +0000

I only use Wikipedia now & then, but it would be a shame to see it go downhill……

LC x

By: Joshua Simeon Narins

Joshua Simeon Narins — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:11:10 +0000

No link? Are they calling anyone who contributes anything an editor?

If half the walkouts were spambots, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

Jimmy Wales is a horrid person who did a wonderful thing, or maybe he did a wonderful thing and then became a horrid person.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:33:18 +0000

I’m not surprised so many volunteers quit. When I was still around on a daily basis, I spent more time fixing vandalism than I spent actually writing new content. All the misinformation can simply no longer be fixed by the amount of volunteers present.

The only reason the current buraucracy doesn’t work is because some people want to keep the radical open approach it uses now at all costs, even if it creates more work. Any bureaucracy applied later should help volunteers with an established track record to do their work without being hindered with petty rules.

By: Matty

Matty — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:11:31 +0000

It won’t be the “end” but, as a reliable online encyclopedia, Wikipedia is basically broken now. I used to edit the site and gave up because I thought its goal was impossible thanks to the sheer numbers of jokers, cranks and political ideologues who made it their business to ruin articles or use them to push their pet theories/worldviews. The wisdom of crowds only works with the uncontroversial – the sky is blue, the earth goes around the sun – as soon as things drift from that path Wikipedia becomes about as reliable as a bloke down the pub.

The site will continue, of course, but I wish it’d stop pretending it can be anything other than a good first reference source. Any serious study of a subject should be done via the old-fashioned route.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:08:01 +0000

And I’ve noticed that they are appealing for donations more than ever now. I never understood how it kept going in the first place.

By: Vicky

Vicky — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:45:01 +0000

Tom, the point of the article is that the information is more likely to not be accurate. Doesn’t everyone use Wiki to find out correct information, so if it is not correct then not a very useful tool.